<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2018 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'No day off',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<img src="/img/CC_BY-SA_4.0/y.st./weblog/2018/12/26.jpg" alt="A heart under the bridge" class="framed-centred-image" width="649" height="480"/>
<section id="no_rest">
	<h2>No rest</h2>
	<p>
		I totally spaced it yesterday, and forgot I needed to do the write-up for my code-submission assignment.
		Last night, my mother said she was going to visit, then just didn&apos;t for several hours.
		By the time she arrived, it was dark, so I didn&apos;t get to go out at all.
		And now today, I needed to get my glasses redone, in addition to catching up with the coursework I spaced and forgot to finish.
		So it looks like I didn&apos;t get <strong>*any*</strong> day off after all.
		Joy.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="eyeglasses">
	<h2>Eyeglasses</h2>
	<p>
		So the representative at the eyeglass store told me the focal point was only off due to the fact that I was wearing the glasses wrong.
		Apparently, I&apos;m supposed to wear them further out, where it feels like they&apos;re loose and going to fall off.
		They&apos;re <strong>*not*</strong> actually loose or going to fall off in that position, but the fact that they feel like they are makes that an uncomfortable way to wear them.
		They said I just need to get used to them.
		I I go out and start unlocking my bike.
		With the glasses that far out, I had to look <strong>*under*</strong> the glasses to see the lock unless I pointed my head way down.
		That drew my attention to the fact that the lenses only covered half my field of view at that distance.
		My field of view was halved.
		That couldn&apos;t be right.
		So I went back and explained the situation again, this time with the new details.
		They said the only options were to either deal with it or exchange for frames that allowed for larger lenses.
		So exchange I did.
		I ended up with a pair of aviators.
		They look goofy.
		But now I know why Cyrus probably chose this style of frames for his own glasses.
	</p>
	<p>
		The people at the store may have been resistant to exchanging the lenses for ones with a proper focal point, but when they exchanged the frames, they had to replace the lenses anyway.
		This time, I made completely sure the frames were exactly where they needed to be on my face, so the focal point when they made the lenses was exactly where it needed to be.
		Or at least close.
		It&apos;s hard to tell.
		Now, obnoxiously-large frames aren&apos;t needed, but that&apos;s what I&apos;ve got.
	</p>
	<p>
		I think these lenses help a little at a distance, but I still can&apos;t read distant street signs, making any help they provide not actually useful.
		They also mess up my close-range vision, making me far-sighted instead of near-sighted, and screw with my eyes when I take them off.
		I think these glasses were made correctly, unlike the last pair, but they&apos;re doing me more harm that good.
		I was a fool to get them.
		I mean, I understand basic lens mechanics.
		I just didn&apos;t think about how they apply to glasses.
		Because of the way lenses work, there&apos;s no way for them to improve my distance vision without them also impairing my close-range vision without having two lenses that can be moved closer and further apart.
		And glasses don&apos;t have that.
		I should have thought about how they work more.
		This was a waste of money.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="drudgery">
	<h2>Drudgery</h2>
	<p>
		My discussion posts for the day:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Like you said, generic programming lets you store values of a type you want without having to typecast the values before using them.
			This saves a lot of annoyance that you get in strongly-typed languages, while not requiring a separate class for the storage of each type of item.
			Like you said though, in Java, you can&apos;t use primitives with generic programming.
		</p>
		<p>
			You&apos;re right that open recursion typically uses <code>this</code> or <code>self</code> to reference the class itself, but there&apos;s more to it than that.
			It allows you to reference class members that were not yet defined when the methods attempting to use them were defined.
			These methods can attributes and even call other methods that are located further down in the class definition.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Why do you think a good pivot point should be chosen?
			What happens if a less-than-ideal pivot point is chosen instead?
			You mentioned what the pivot point is used for, but not why it&apos;s important for a good pivot point to be chosen.
			Too many bad pivot points will drastically cut the efficiency of quick sort.
			Why is that?
		</p>
	</blockquote>
</section>
END
);
